High-Dose Buprenorphine Initiation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to review and synthesize the literature on high-dose buprenorphine initiation (>12-mg total dose on day of initiation). METHODS: A scoping review of literature about high-dose buprenorphine initiation was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central were searched. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case studies/reports published in English before February 13, 2023, were included. RESULTS: Fifteen studies reporting outcomes from 580 high-dose buprenorphine initiations were included. Eight studies were in inpatient settings, 3 in emergency departments, 3 in outpatient settings, and 1 in a first-responder setting. Four studies reported high-dose initiations among individuals exposed to fentanyl. There were no reported events of fatal or nonfatal overdose or respiratory depression, although adverse event reporting was inconsistent in published reports. The most reported side effects with high-dose buprenorphine initiation were nausea or vomiting (n = 17) and precipitated withdrawal (n = 7). The most serious reported adverse event was hypotension requiring oral hydration (n = 2). Most studies reported improvements in subjective or objective withdrawal symptoms. The duration of follow-up ranged from none to 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose buprenorphine initiation has not been associated with reported cases of overdose or respiratory depression. However, the current literature about high-dose buprenorphine is limited by inconsistent side effect reporting, limited power to detect rare safety events such as respiratory depression, limited follow-up data, and few comparison studies between high-dose and regular initiation protocols. Further prospective data are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this initiation strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".